28 September 2007

DOC Says Waikatea Environment Court Decision A Win Win

“The decision is a win for the environment, a big tick for the resource consent process, and a win for the farmer”, Department of Conservation (DOC) Conservator, Peter Williamson said today. He was commenting on the Environment Court’s recent decision against the department’s appeal of Wairoa District Council resource consent to the Bayly Trust to clear up to 350 ha of kanuka forest and scrub on Waikatea Station.

“The original application was to clear another 550 ha of kanuka forest and scrub and Wairoa District Council granted consent for 350 hectares. The interim decision has reduced the area for clearance further, yet to be determined in detail but about 280 hectares, and the protection for the remaining indigenous vegetation much improved” he said, “The environment gets protection, the farmer gets to clear, the process has worked, the outcome is as simple as that.”

“I wonder what point Charlie Pedersen (Federated Farmer’s president) is trying to make when he portrays the case as a farmer having ‘to defend the right to farm on his own land’, ” he said.

“DOC has no problem with farmers clearing young scrub as part of hill-country pasture maintenance. The vegetation at issue on Waikatea was not scrub that had got away following the 1980s downturn in farming as described by Mr Pedersen. It was about capital development by clearing extensive areas of 40 to 70-year-old kanuka forest, which in its context is clearly significant. It was identified as among the best examples of such kanuka forest in the district.

“The Court has agreed that, for the purpose of assessing the effects of the proposed clearance, the vegetation is significant. However clearance of a reduced area was judged acceptable. But this is only on the basis that over 800 hectares, including restored indigenous vegetation linkages, is to be legally protected by covenant together with pest control, fencing and no further grazing.

“This does not make Waikatea a landmark case indicating DOC’s assessment of significant indigenous vegetation was wrong and farmers will now be able to clear what they like, as Federated Farmers seem to be suggesting.”

Mr Williamson said he was pleased the outcome of the Court’s decision was very much better for biodiversity than if DOC had not been involved. “The area cleared will now be much less, and the protection for the remaining indigenous vegetation much better”.

Mr Williamson emphasised that DOC has a responsibility to advocate for protection of indigenous biodiversity and other conservation values, in the public interest.

Ends
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WAIKATEA SITUATION
Kanuka forest is an important stage of the regeneration process of lowland forests most of which have been cleared in New Zealand.

Sixty year old kanuka forest has invertebrate biodiversity values equal or greater than many primary forests.

The Bayly Trust originally applied to clear 550 ha of kanuka forest and scrub mostly 40-70 years old.

The Wairoa District Council consented the clearance of about 350 ha.

DOC appealed the decision on the grounds that this was amongst the Wairoa District’s most significant areas of kanuka forest.

Before the Trust purchased Waikatea in 2004, Trustees met with DOC and were made well aware of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and what DOC’s concerns were.

During discussions and subsequent field inspections, the Trust was generalised in its intentions and did not specifically mention any exact areas intended for clearance. DOC become aware of the Trust’s exact intentions one week before it lodged an application to the Wairoa District Council.

About 600 hectares of kanuka forest and scrub had already been cleared (but not fully developed) on the 3500 hectare Waikatea Station since 2001, without resource consents. In DOC’s view, this had taken all the non-significant vegetation and additionally much that was significant, making it hard to find a reasonable compromise.

Following Environment Court-led mediation, without prejudice discussions were held with the Trust, or its agent, until late last year and also with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council to within one month of the case being heard.

The Environment Court agreed that, for the purpose of assessing the effects of the proposed clearance, the vegetation was significant. However clearance of a reduced area (around 280ha) was judged acceptable. But this is only on the basis that about 800 hectares, including restored indigenous vegetation linkages, is to be legally protected by covenant together with pest control, fencing and no further grazing.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RMA AND DOC’S ROLE
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) governs how natural and physical resources in NZ can be used, developed or protected.

The Department of Conservation has a few roles to play in the RMA, but does not manage or administer the process. DOC doesn't control activities on private land. It can make submissions on proposals by other parties that may have adverse environmental effects. DOC has no ability to impose controls on private land.

Any person can make submissions on any notified application.

DOC is not the decision maker in RMA decisions on private land. It is either the council or the courts.

DOC’s role in the RMA process can be of benefit to the community. DOC can assist a local community by providing the relevant information on the flora and fauna of the area.

DOC is simply one of a wide variety of interested parties that submit on applications under the RMA.

DOC predominately gives advice before an application has been lodged to help developers understand and identify potential issues regarding public resources.

ENDS

© Scoop Media